The Republican National Committee (RNC) asked the Supreme Court on Aug. 19 to prevent 41,000 registered voters from voting in the November presidential election because they allegedly did not provide proof of U.S. citizenship.
Arizona is a hotly contested battleground that could help determine who wins the election. In 2020, President Joe Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes.
The new filing in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota came after the RNC filed an emergency application with the court on Aug. 8. Respondent Mi Familia Vota is a nonprofit group active in Arizona and several other states.
The application is pending before Justice Elena Kagan.
At issue in the case are the Arizona laws, H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243, which the state Legislature approved in 2022.
The statutes require people registering to vote in the state to present “satisfactory” proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, to provide proof of eligibility to vote. The laws also require registrants to provide their state or country of birth and require counties to carry out citizenship verifications and purge noncitizens from the voter rolls. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton halted enforcement of the proof of citizenship mandate on May 2, citing the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), also known as the Motor Voter Law, and a prior state court order.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton halted enforcement of the proof of citizenship mandate on May 2, citing the federal so-called Motor Voter Law and a prior state court order.
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Bolton’s order by a vote of 2-1 on Aug. 1.
Although Congress has made it easier for Americans to register to vote, federal rules should not be allowed to supersede “the Arizona Legislature’s sovereign authority to determine the qualifications of voters and structure participation in its elections,” the RNC said in the application it originally filed on Aug. 8.
In the Aug. 19 filing, the RNC referenced the other side’s invocation of the so-called Purcell Principle, which is a judicial doctrine that courts should not change rules close to an election because doing so creates a risk of causing confusion.
But this approach is wrong because it would require “courts to make a freestanding assessment of whether enforcement or nonenforcement of state election law is more likely to cause confusion.”
The respondents’ argument would impose an unfair standard because it directs federal courts to look at state enforcement policy and “find that the status quo weighs in favor of an injunction if enforcement has not been vigorous enough,” the brief says.
This refashioning of the Purcell Principle would also make federal courts “weigh Purcell in favor of an injunction if enough state election officials would prefer that result—even when other state officials would enforce state law.”
This approach to Purcell would allow federal authorities to interfere with state lawmaking processes.
“Allowing the Ninth Circuit’s weaponization of Purcell against state election law to stand will only encourage more last-minute injunctions by federal courts,” the brief says.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes urged the Supreme Court to reject the application in a brief filed on Aug. 16.
It is already too close to the election for the Supreme Court to act in this time-sensitive case, he said.
“In just a mere 7 weeks, early voting in Arizona will begin. To be sure, at this juncture in Arizona elections, time is not only of the essence, but it is in short supply. “
“Last minute statewide policy changes like those requested in the Application, no matter how small they may seem to some, can (and Secretary Fontes believes will) drastically impact how affected votes are collected and processed.”
The U.S. Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court to deny the application.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in a brief filed Aug. 16 that because the NVRA “preempts” the Arizona laws’ requirement that voters file “documentary proof in order to vote for President or vote by mail,” the RNC was “unlikely to prevail” in the case.
Federal preemption means that a state law that conflicts with federal law is invalid.
It is unclear when the Supreme Court will act on the RNC’s application.
